Search results

Parliament is considered one of the most important institutions in representative democracies. However, Rules of Procedure as institutional regulation of its activity have been rarely analysed. This paper aims to fill this gap by conducting an analysis of amending the Rules of Procedure of the Slovak legislature in the period 1998–2016, almost its entire existence. The analysis not only covers passed amendments but also looks at proposed but unpassed ones. The main assumption is that through changing the parliamentary rules, the parliament adapts itself to specific trends. These are identified in the paper, as well as the main categories the proposed amendments concentrated on, distinguishing between redistributive and effective amendments. One of the key findings of the paper is that it is not the government that dominates the process of proposing amendments to the parliamentary rules. On the other hand, when we look at passed amendments only, the government is, then, the dominant actor. The assumption that the amendments of the Rules of Procedure are primarily of a redistributive character was not verified. Despite the fact that amending these rules may be used by the governmental majority to redistribute the power in the Slovak parliament, in practise, such behaviour is rather infrequent and cannot be described as the government's weapon against the opposition.

The only actor capable of restraining the government from directly within the parliament is the parliamentary opposition. In the case of the Slovak parliament, the opposition is not formally institutionalized, but it definitely has the capacity to become so. However, in Slovakia governments usually enjoy the majority in parliament. Thus, the restraining possibilities of the parliamentary opposition are limited. Nevertheless, this influence is not unimportant. This paper analyzes all the institutional opportunities of the opposition in the National Council of the Slovak Republic in the period 1994–2012. It focuses on the following institutional factors: capability of the opposition to influence the approval of any bill; amendments of Rules of Procedure; selection of parliamentary offices; confidence and no-confidence votes; parliamentary questions and interpellations; constitutional review, and referendum.

Abstract: In a five–part, broad legal study, the author has analyzed the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in three European countries – the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Croatia – two of which have already entered the European Union successfully. The goal of the study has been to familiarize the professional legal public as well as independent readers not only with the legal regulation of enforcement of arbitral awards in the aforementioned countries, but with the real practice of national enforcement courts as well. Furthermore, the author has focused on providing the reader with a comparative insight into the enforcement of arbitral awards in all three European states in its entire complexity. Finally, evaluating the current specifi c position of Croatia as a country that still has not acceded to the European Union, the author introduced an explanation of various reasons for including Croatia in the submitted study.
Résumé: L'auteur a analysé, dans une étude en 5 parties au spectre juridique large, l'exécution des sentences arbitrales étrangères et nationales dans trois pays européens – la République Tchèque, la Slovaquie et la Croatie – deux d'entre eux ayant déjà rejoint avec succès l'Union Européenne. L'objet de cette étude a été de familiariser autant les juristes professionnels que les lecteurs indépendants non seulement avec la règlementation de l'exécution des sentences arbitrales dans les pays susmentionnés mais aussi avec la pratique effective des tribunaux nationaux d'exécution. De plus, l'auteur s'est concentré à donner au lecteur dans toute sa complexité le point de vue comparatif vis–à–vis de l'exécution de sentences arbitrales dans les trois pays européens. Enfi n, évaluant la situation actuelle spécifi que de la Croatie en tant que pays n'ayant pas encore approché l'Union Européenne, l'auteur a présenté une explication des différentes raisons l'ayant amené à inclure la Croatie dans l'étude soumise.
Zusammenfassung: In einer in fünf Teilen aufgebauten rechtswissenschaftlichen Untersuchung hat der Autor die Vollstreckung von ausländischen und nationalen Schiedsentscheidungen in drei europäischen Ländern (Tschechien, Slowakei und Kroatien), von denen zwei als Mitglieder der Europäischen Union aufgenommen sind, untersucht. Das Ziel dieser Untersuchung ist, die professionale juristische Öffentlichkeit sowie auch andere Interessierte nicht nur mit den Regelung der Vollstreckung von Schiedsentscheidungen in den genannten Ländern vertraut zu machen, sondern auch mit der Praxis der nationalen Vollstreckungsgerichte in diesen Ländern. Darüber hinaus beabsichtigt der Autor, den Lesern einen rechtsvergleichenden Überblick über die gesamte Komplexität der Vollstreckung von Schiedsentscheidungen in diesen drei europäischen Ländern zu geben. Abschließend begründet der Autor, warum es angemessen ist, die Rechtslage in Kroatien in dieser Untersuchung darzustellen, trotz der derzeitigen besondern Stellung Kroatiens als nicht Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union.